Another climate researcher claims to have won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize

houghtonFrom the move over Mann department (on a tip from a WUWT reader)

Richard A. Houghton, Ph.D. has made a blatantly false claim on his Woods Hole Research Center webpage that:

“Along with other lead authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports, Dr. Houghton was a recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.”


In a statement of 29 October 2012 the IPCC clarified that the “prize was awarded to the IPCC as an organisation, and not to any individual involved with the IPCC. Thus it is incorrect to refer to any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel laureate or Nobel Prize winner. It would be correct to describe a scientist who was involved with AR4 or earlier IPCC reports in this way: ‘X contributed to the reports of the IPCC, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.'” It stated that it had not sent the certificates to “contributing authors, expert reviewers and focal points.


Even Wiki, that great bastion of information, states the same information.

Dr. Duffy, President of Woods Hole Research Center, has been contacted on the false claim and we await a correction to Dr.  Houghton’s webpage along with a public retraction and apology for promoting  false credentials.

In 2014, the U.S. Government (taxpayers) gave $4,984,373 that represented 55.5% of Woods Hole’s research money.  It is not known how much money was raised based upon Dr.  Houghton’s “Nobel Prize credentials”.

[Added: screen cap]


146 thoughts on “Another climate researcher claims to have won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize

    • This is biggest thing that needs calling out. The “peace” prize is a political award for doing something that Nobel Committee likes.
      It speaks volumes that this so-called scientific report did not win them a science Nobel prize. It won them a political prize.
      The IPCC is NOT a scientific organization and did not win a Nobel science award. It is a intergovernmental, political body that won half a political award. Gore is a politician who won the other half of a political award.

      • The so called “Peace Prize” is the only Noble Prize awarded by the Norwegian Committee, and it is widely suspected, that in recent years in the 21st Century, that they do choose the person or organisation which they think will most upset the Swedish Nobel Committee……. Toys – Pram – Children ???

      • Mike, very good, you are correct. Judge for yourself what a Nobel science prize means. But a Nobel peace prize means nothing or is a badge of dishonor. Yasser Arafat, Barack Obama, and the like win Nobel peace prizes. And in 2007 the ICPP won half of a peace prize and Al Gore won the Other half.

      • Neither is the Woods Hole Research Center. It’s a tarted up political action committee.
        Stole their name from an actual scientific org for the confusion if would create.
        They’re like League of Conservation voter.

    • Well, let us see. They are peacefully showing videos where you can explode children. They are peacefully asking those who disagree with them to put in prison. They are peacefully linking those who disagree with them to the holocaust. Violence against non-believers is true peace after all. At least in their mind.

    • Good point, it is a political not a scientific award. So even if he did win it, it has nothing to do with credible science.

    • Paul really??? It’s the most obvious association EVER, you control the climate and you promote peace, nobody is really interested in going into battle when the air temperature is sub zero! The proof? we never had a war in the Arctic or Antarctic! There!

  1. Yet another example of the UNIPCC’s “group-hug” mentality. It’s also a very sneaky way to collect apparent “endorsements” for any reports they produce, the more the merrier sort of thing. I recal reading a paper/article by Prof Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute, Paris, in which he explained his testimony to the House of Lords Climate Change Committee, saying that he had threatened the IPCC with legal action to have his name removed from their report, the IPCC insisting he should be “included” because he had “contributed”! However, the inclusion of all who contributed implies falsely that they ALL agreed with the IPCC’s conclusions, which is emphatically NOT the same thing at all! In principle, one could “contribute” to their reports, totally disagreeing with their conclusions, have your input wholly removed or sanitised, but one still “contributed”! Very crafty & sneaky & downright dishonest!

    • Sounds like the ever expanding scope of some formerly narrow focus environmental group. Sign a petition expressing your disagreement with hunting bunnies with bazookas (or something) and next thing you know, said environmental group claims you support ALL their loopy “causes”.

      • Yep, been on the reeiving end of that one years ago, can’t remember which one it was but I’d been get post every now & then through the door thanking my for continued support!!! Took me a few weeks to get my name taken off their little list of faithful followers!

  2. Might be easier for the handful of us who didn’t win a Nobel Prize to just register our unworthy names somewhere and leave it at that.

    • There is always ….. The Ig® Nobel Prize
      “The Ig Nobel Prizes honor achievements that make people LAUGH, and then THINK. The prizes are intended to celebrate the unusual, honor the imaginative — and spur people’s interest in science, medicine, and technology.
      Every September, in a gala ceremony in Harvard’s Sanders Theatre, 1100 splendidly eccentric spectators watch the new winners step forward to accept their Prizes. These are physically handed out by genuinely bemused genuine Nobel Laureates.”
      Genuinely this …..
      Eigil Reimers and Sindre Eftestøl, for testing how reindeer
      react to seeing humans who are disguised as polar bears.
      REFERENCE: “Response Behaviors of Svalbard Reindeer towards Humans and Humans Disguised as Polar Bears on Edgeøya,” Eigil Reimers and Sindre Eftestøl, Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research, vol. 44, no. 4, 2012, pp. 483-9.
      See more read all about it …
      Now that’s Science !!!!

      • I was more interested in the response of polar bears when they see a human dressed as reindeer compared to how they respond when a human is dressed as another polar bear.
        Now that might be interesting research.

      • Well, Obama got one when his only accomplishment was (and still is) being elected President, so by the logic of Mann and Houghton, every person who voted for him share the prize. I am not included in that group, with no regrets, prize or not.

  3. Seems it has been changed on his website:
    Along with the IPCC, a portion of the Nobel Peace Prize, 2007.
    A portion… LOL
    [there has been no change on the website as of this writing, and the word “portion” does not appear -mod]

      • Right, didn’t read the top paragraph, sorry mod.
        I had scrolled to the bottom of the page, where it can be found.

    • When I checked it now says “Dr. Houghton contributed to the reports of the IPCC which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.” which is pretty accurate, it could be that someone who maintains the website edited the bio and Dr. Houghton was unaware of the actual verbage.

      • “Nerd rage”. Fascist rage. Sounds like RICHARD S. COURTNEY. Reference Dahlquist and Mr. Courtneys posts above and below Dahlquist at 7:29 pm, 16 June 2015 in the article of 15 June 2015 “Claim: Increased carbon dioxide levels in air restrict plants’ ability to absorb nutrients”.
        [???? .mod]

      • In reference to my post today, I apologize to others here who should not have to be subjected to an exchange which took place between Richard s. Courtney and I the other day. I feel it is appropriate to point out that Mr. Courtney seems to believe he is judge, jury and executioner and seems to feel the need to put down anyone who even attempts to tell the truth when it does not suit his tastes…That co2 “May” have some minor negative effects on plants. It seems that he acts like the people and scientists on the CAGW side to shut down any opinion other than their own.
        Dahlquist June 16, 2015 at 7:29 pm
        I suppose it is allowed for posters like Richard s Cortney to creep back into a post late at night when everyone is sleeping and the post has been laid to rest, to continue to manipulate and trash talk people who aren’t there to respond in order to make himself look smart and good…A real TRUTH SEEKING SKEPTIC who cannot stand to hear the truth about a minor, possible aspect of co2 increase. It simply cannot go without an attack on one who brings up a possible problem with co2 in a discussion forum.
        It is not my responsibility to lead Richard by the nose to anything. I gave him what I had and was truthful and respectable with him. Criticizing another for not doing what you yourself are perfectly capable of doing is lazy and childish. Richard had every opportunity to listen to me, jquip and Jimmy and refer to the study which contained references to 30 or more other studies and did state that co2 does have some negative effects on some plant species. He just needed to entertain an open mind and do his own research, rather than bag on me for not doing his work for him.
        After this exchange, I did a search of him and found many people who know him for similar bashing on people. He has a bad reputation for this. I would hope he can learn that bashing people for stating a truth and referring others to some good info is not a reason to insult and harangue that person, as we have similar goals in opposing the CAGW agenda. However, I am not going to go about bashing someone for stating something about the issues with co2 because I simply don’t like to hear it, as Richard seems to have done to me.
        Clean your act up Richard S. Courntey. Please. It would be a favor to all of us who have had to endure tour BS.
        Dahlquist June 15, 2015 at 9:05 am
        This study does agree with many others from 1990s and 2000s.
        Jquip June 15, 2015 at 12:03 pm
        richard, read through the paper a bit. It is an interesting one and it does echo a number of the points raised elsewhere is thread by commenters. Specifically to the issue of protein and protein concentrations, look at the page numbered 239. (Numerous citations are name-dropped liberally throughout)
        Note here though: the question seems to be less whether it does or not, then whether we care or not. For instance, in the one protocol it noted a 14% loss under a 100% N load. But only a 9% loss under a 50% N load. Which seems rather absurdly backwards. But there’s a reasonable discussion about the nitrogen uptake networks and their regulations that may relate to this. Not stated in relation to protein reduction is plant mass. For if we only reduce proteins 14% under heavy fertilization — and on 9% under moderate fertilization — but have, say, 50% more plant mass, then this seems like an overall win on the nutrition angle.
        Jimmy June 15, 2015 at 2:23 pm
        You quoted the Jain and Pandy paper as pointing out that the “response to elevated CO2 concentration is usually positive.” You should note that this was in the context of photosynthetic output. The paper went on to say (all quotes are from the same paper):
        “As a result of this primary response [referring to the improved carbon assimilation], and a range of secondary responses,including growth, dry matter allocation, and nutrient composition and assimilation,may change”
        “Therefore, factorsthat may affect availability and uptake of N are critical in determining plant and ecosystem responses to high CO2″
        “The overall nitrogen concentration in plants on dry weight basis decreases when they are grown in enhanced CO2 (Jain et al., 2007)”
        “Further, the total amountof nitrogen per plant is often unaltered (Hocking and Meyer, 1991a) or reduced (Conroy et al., 1992) in enhanced CO2″
        I highly recommend that you take the advice of Dahlquist and Jquip and read beyond the first page of the paper.
        There are another number of posts between Mr. Courtney and I, but it would take up too much space. My attempt here is to let others know the Mode of operation of Mr. Richard S. Courtney in order to save themselves some aggravation and wasted time if you happen to run into him here and at other skeptic websites.
        Apologies and thanks

      • Ps. If anyone cares to view exchange, be sure to look at the times of postings. Richard S. Courtney goes back and places his newer replies where it looks like continuation of the thread, but some of them are not. He inserted them where he chose to make it look better for him.
        [Not true. Replies are inserted by WordPress’ processor based on the “location” of the [Reply] button in the thread at the time of the answer, and on which display mode of WordPress is being used by each respondent on his or her screen at the time of reply. Many hundreds of users have reported their “replies” are in different location in the thread than where they expected. .mod]

      • “Dahlquist June 17, 2015 at 7:27 am ”

        Now that is completely off topic!
        Not forgetting that your comment is made for personal reasons.

      • @ATheoK
        Yes. Being attacked personally and for ridiculous reasons deserves a rebuttal. Mr. Courtney has an unreasonable flair for this.

  4. He’s not the only one Jonathan Overpeck has this on his CV bio:
    “2007 – Nobel Peace Prize – contributed in leadership role as a Coordinating Lead Author of
    the Fourth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”

  5. Note that this warmist outfit’s name sounds a lot like the reputable Wood’s Hole Oceanographic Institute. Coincidence, I’m sure…

    • I think the name (WHRC) was specifically chosen because those that are not aware that WHRC is a warmist cabal that in no way has anywhere near the scientific chops the Wood Hole Oceanographic Institute has.

      • I agree. Other organizations would have doubtlessly NOT want to be mistaken for a different group but in this case it suits them just fine.

  6. Maybe he’d like to come here and explain why he’s even proud of contributing to that pile of crap.
    Didn’t think so.

  7. Used car salesman of the month would be a better title. On the other hand I don’t think he would have been good at kicking tyres either. Nah, just another “could a been champion”, (Aussie’s will know the reference).

  8. I don’t care about the stupid (and meaningless) Nobel Peace Prize. I want to know what the HECK is the “International Center for Climate Governance”!! Climate Governance????

    • – home page
      About: (for more, bring basic airline barf bag)
      ICCG’s mission is to disseminate science-based and socio-economic research in the field of climate change mitigation and adaptation to policymakers and the general public. It seeks to achieve this at the local, national and international level through interdisciplinary activities as well as producing climate and energy policy analyzes and defining optimal governance models to manage climate change.

  9. As a recipient of Time Magazine’s 2006 Person of the Year award, I find this reprehensible….

    • OMG, I did not know I am 2006 Person of the Year! So somebody actually reads my comments on WUWT???
      (What’s next? A Macarthur “genius” grant for getting out of bed in the morning?)

  10. 97% of some of the scientist who agreed with the IPCC report were recipients of the 2007 Nobel Piece Prize which, when, divided among all of the recipients amounted to $1.41 each along with a microscopic piece of paper.

  11. Reagan, Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II never received the Nobel Prize for bringing down the Berlin Wall and defeating communism, but Gore, Obama, the IPCC received the price for …… I have no clue.
    The Nobel Prize used to mean something, but no more.

    • I wrote the prize off when Jimmy Carter and a little terrorist murderer in the Middle East shared one. I suspect they weren’t the first non-deserving prize winners.

  12. I have something even better than the IPCC “Nobel Statement” document. Since there are at least 2 persons in Montreal also claiming to be recipients of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, I took the liberty of asking the Norwegian Nobel Institute directly:
    From: Michel Lafontaine [] Sent: 2. mai 2015 22:49
To: Postmaster
Subject: Claiming to be a Nobel Peace Price recipient
    Madam / Sir
    I am including a link to a short resumé of an individual, called Eric Duchemin, who claims that, because he performed work and studies for the IPCC, he is allowed to be identified as a co-recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize (in French as quoted “co- récipiendaire du prix Nobel de la paix 2007). I am also including a pdf document of the same link.
    Subject: RE: Claiming to be a Nobel Peace Price recipient From: Postmaster (
Date: Monday, May 4, 2015 7:47 AM
    When an organisation is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, its individual members/employees/contributors or the like are not referred to as laureates by the Norwegian Nobel Committee.
    Kind regards
    Dag Kühle-Gotovac
    Head of Administration
The Norwegian Nobel Institute

  13. “prize was awarded to the IPCC as an organisation, and not to any individual involved with the IPCC. Thus it is incorrect to refer to any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel laureate or Nobel Prize winner”
    A mere technicality. If they can find a less accurate source to adjust it with it easily rises to the required level.

  14. A “Peace” prize awarded for waging a “war on carbon” and on rationality itself? I guess war really is peace.

  15. It’s more like a participation award. It doesn’t matter if you win or lose and it doesn’t matter if you are right or wrong, as long as you participate.

  16. Have you ever noticed how all these folks have a track record of studying relationships in fairly narrow context … “Assistant Scientist … Marine Biology” and then they are suddenly producing research with implications for the entire climate system?
    “Bob spent 14 years investigating the relationship between catnip concentrations and playfulness among domestic felines, and now has produced important research into relationship between global warming and sustained viability of Lion, Tiger, Jaguar, Panther, Cougar and Bobcat populations across 5 continents.”

  17. This whole sordid affair is resume padding for the purpose of grant seeking. Equivalent to me saying I have been awarded the Best Blog Award simply because I say something on someone else’s blog now and then, though none of my contributions are important in the grande (and even little) scheme of things. But I participate, therefore I am worthy of awarded adulation. Send money.
    Poof and piffle.
    Back in the old days, participation would mean I would get a white or green “Participation” ribbon, maybe. But these days we have to over-congratulate humans lest the wee little fragile things get an inferiority complex.
    These prize giving entities have gone off the rails. Awards, stellar resumes and self-esteem are built only one way: Through one stress producing mistake after another until the 1200th+ re-worked thingamajig version actually works and leads to a significant improvement in human existence.
    So here’s my model of when we will see a humble apology and retraction: When hell freezes over. And my model will likely out-perform the IPCC models-based report this yahoo “says” he is responsible for.

    • I would never suggest something like an irate email writing campaign to Woods Hole. Putting some pressure on the management and letting them know there are lots of people watching might be unseemly. It is a technique the warmists use to apply pressure to anyone and everyone they disagree with. Turnaround is fair play, they say, but it is not something we would want to do.
      Again, I would never suggest an email blitz campaign.
      At the same time, such a campaign could cause hell to freeze over. Certain groups are known to cave in quickly and easily as soon as things get hot.

      • Tony, you are far more eloquent than this raised on a ranch Irish redhead. Telling it my way does not win friends and influence people. Fortunately Anth*** lets me rif a bit here so I don’t do it elsewhere.

      • Ms. Gray,
        Now I am wondering whether this raised in the mean and dirty city Irish mophead’s “Calling big fat liars a big fat liar” style is winning ME any friends?
        Oh, wait….nope, still not wondering or caring after all.
        Never mind.

  18. If enough climate scientists claim this it’ll become a consensus and therefore true. Right?

  19. Now come on, don’t you understand the New Progressive Normal?
    Here is what we have all learned in recent days:
    – It doesn’t matter if you’re genetically a “woman”, all that matters is that you FEEL like a woman.
    – It doesn’t matter if you’re genetically “black”, all that matters is that you IDENTIFY with “black culture”.
    – And, it doesn’t matter whether or not you actually were “awarded” a Nobel Prize, all that matters is that you FEEL like you won a Nobel Prize.
    See? It’s all so simple.

    • Well, wws, I FEEL like I’m rich so I’m going to head down to the local Ferrari dealer and write a check for something red and really fast. (Of course my bank and the police officers they send to my house for a social call must respect my feelings in this matter.)

  20. What is the going rate for a Nobel Peace Prize these days or the group rate for a group prize? Were those handled by FIFA deals also?

    • I paid 1400 Swiss Francs for mine at a blind-bid charity auction. Nailed it too, when they revealed that the next highest bid was 1360 Francs … next year I think I’ll get one for 6 year old daughter.

  21. “Along with other lead authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports, Dr. Houghton was a recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.”
    You see, this is the problem. These climate change charlatans have no hesitation to deceive, mislead, lie, distort the truth, etc etc. They do because it is an ego thing. Individuals like Houghton think they are legends but they are not … except in their own minds!

  22. Peace prize? And how serious conflict has been stoked by the misallocation of resources due to the misguided focus on CO² and so called ‘global warming’? How many useful life preserving/saving projects not pursued? What’s that famous curse? ‘May you live in interesting times’.

  23. In 2014, the U.S. Government (taxpayers) gave $4,984,373 that represented 55.5% of Woods Hole’s research money. It is not known how much money was raised based upon Dr. Houghton’s “Nobel Prize credentials”.

    I’m not so sure the claim is false. It’s just a typo. It should have read:
    ‘“Along with other lead authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports, Dr. Houghton was a recipient of the 2007 Nobel Piece-of-the-Pie Prize.”’

  24. A bit more grist for the mill 😉
    “2007 Nobel Peace Prize
    CU-Boulder Research Faculty Share 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore
    Several CU-Boulder research faculty shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore for their contributions to the international report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They include faculty from the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, the ecology and evolutionary biology department and the economics department.”
    William E. Easterlings CV (Dean College of Earth and Mineral Sciences The Pennsylvania State University)
    “Coordinating Lead Author, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group II, Fourth Assessment Report (Chapter 5, Food, Fibre, Forestry), 2005-2007. (Nominated by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy) The IPCC, its Chairpersons, and Lead Authors were co-awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore.”
    Cv link
    Fake Nobel pic on bio
    (h/t & a few more here )
    Marilyn Brown Professor School of Public Policy, Georgia Tech
    ” Among her honors and awards, she is a co-recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, for co-authorship of the report on Mitigation of Climate Change.”
    And on her linkedin page…
    “Co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, 2007, for co-authorship of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group III Assessment Report on Mitigation of Climate Change.”
    (for extra points the search string Marilyn Brown +”co-recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize” gets 455 results on Google, someone has some housekeeping to do!)
    Professor Elisabeth Holland University of the South Pacific
    “In 2007, she was a co-recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for her contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). She is an author of four of the five IPCC reports and also served as a US, German and now a Fiji representative.”
    University of North Carolina (2014) describes Berrien Moore III as:
    “Moore, a Carolina alumnus, received along with Al Gore and colleagues of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for efforts to improve knowledge about climate change and lay the foundations for measures needed to counteract it.”
    “As coordinating lead author of the final chapter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) Third Assessment Report, Moore shared in the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.”
    Dr. Brad Bass Environment Canada, Government in-house Green Roof expert
    “AWARDS / EDUCATION: Ph.D. Geography, 2007 Co-recipient of Nobel Peace Prize as member of IPCC-TGICA”
    “Karen Clark Honored with Award for Nobel Peace Prize
    BOSTON, May 21, 2008
    Karen Clark & Company announced today that Karen Clark, President and CEO, has been honored with an award certificate for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize bestowed on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”
    Dr. Atiq Rahman Bangladesh Centre for advanced studies
    “Nobel Peace Prize in 2007
    Dr. Atiq Rahman is a well recognized global leader in sustainable development. He was a lead author of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which received Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. He was a recipient of this Noble Peace Prize with other scientists.”
    “Dr. Richard Alley, received the Nobel Peace Prize for work on climate change
    Dr. Richard Alley is a Penn State professor, environmental scientist, PBS host, book author, polar ice expert, bicycle enthusiast, geologist, Nobel Prize winner, Johnny Cash impersonator, former oil company employee”
    Texas A&M University Nobel Prize Recipients:
    “Nobel Peace Prize: McCarl, Bruce: Year: 2007
    Title: Distinguished Professor
    College: Agriculture and Life Sciences
    Department: Agricultural Economics ”
    Steve Running Regents Professor, University of Montana
    “Awards: Co-recipient, Nobel Peace Prize 2007”
    Dr.Gordon A. McBean, Western university Canada
    Gordon McBean, professor in the departments of Geography and Political Science, is one of many co-recipients of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize…”
    Rodel D. Lasco, PhD University of the Philippines
    “…Since 1999, he has been a lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and was the 2007 cowinner of the Nobel Peace Prize.”
    “Simon Lee, senior researcher for Dow Chemical Co. and a 2007 Nobel Peace Prize winner, is the recipient of the business’ inaugural Sustainability Innovator Award for implementing a next-generation foaming agent technology that reduces greenhouse gas emissions in the production of Styrofoam. ”
    Andrew Weaver Lansdowne Professor and Canada Research Chair in climate modeling and analysis in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at University of Victoria
    Dr. Pavel Kabat, director general and chief executive officer of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria
    “Dr. Kabat’s scientific expertise and research cover earth system science, global change, climate system, climate change impacts and etc. Academic and societal awards and distinctions received by Dr. Kabat include 2007 Nobel Peace Prize (co-recipient of a group prize awarded to IPCC),”
    Philippe Ciais Global Carbon Atlas Scientific team
    “…and was lead author of the IPCC 4th assessment report – for which he was one of the co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007”
    Jean-François Soussana Scientific director, INRA and Member of Groupe II, GIEC
    “BACKGROUND / Academic and professional background
    Co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize 2007 (as the Lead Author, AR4, IPCC)”
    I ran out of time before I ran out of quotes!

      • Hey, before you all leave this thread, there’s one more….
        I was at the U of Colorado when everybody got their Piece of the Prize, and was an expert reviewer for two IPCC reports (not that they paid any attention to my reviews, mind you).
        So I nominate myself ex-post-toastie as a Winner of the 2007 Nobel Piece Prize!
        Come on down!

  25. “In 2014, the U.S. Government (taxpayers) gave $4,984,373 that represented 55.5% of Woods Hole’s research money. It is not known how much money was raised based upon Dr. Houghton’s “Nobel Prize credentials”.
    Perhaps the taxpayers should have known:
    In October 2012, the IPCC issued a Statement about the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. It reads, in part: “The prize was awarded to the IPCC as an organization, and not to any individual associated with the IPCC. Thus it is incorrect to refer to any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel laureate or Nobel Prize winner.”
    Money for nothing and your checks (cheques) for free.

  26. Proudly joining the ranks of such august and noble personages as Yasser Arafat, Barack Obama, and Algore.

  27. Climate Change, The Movement. Where nothing is authentic.
    Heck with the mendacious test for award climate cons use Gene Roddenberry deserves the Nobel Peace Prize for the peace brought about by the Federation he created.

  28. People who claim for medals and rank to which they are not entitled are called, by members of the British Armed forces, ‘Mittys’, I suggest that any scientist who claims to be a ‘co-recipient’ of an NPP should be referred to as a Mitty in any discussion that includes his name or work.

    • Donna and Anthony get the most awesomest people in the world prize. We just have to make some tacky trophies. I don’t know if people want a noble peace prize at this point. It’s like finding yourself in with the wrong crowd on accident.

  29. “People who think they have won the NPP for their contributions to CC” need to read WUWT regularly. It could save them many heartaches. Anyway, “Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first award the NPP”.

  30. Looks like he changed his web-page again:
    “Dr. Houghton contributed to the reports of the IPCC which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.”
    Ha ha

    • He may have altered t he main body that was pointed out earlier, but scroll down to the bottom of the page, look under the heading Achievements and Awards

      Achievements and Awards
      Honorary Doctorate from the Faculty of Forest Science, University of Munich, 1995
      Along with the IPCC, a portion of the Nobel Peace Prize, 2007.
      Fellow of the American Geophysical Union, 2012

      The second line, a portion of the Nobel Prize, still rings of receiving to me..
      Maybe capturing a screen shot of this is also in order.

    • He had the footer changed also, the second line now reads:

      Dr. Houghton contributed to the reports of the IPCC which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.

      Scrubbing history.

  31. Wait, what?!
    The telling of falsehoods, and narcissistic self promotion in the ranks of the Warmista Brothethood?!
    I am shocked, SHOCKED by this revelation!
    Well, pehsps we can comfort ourselves in the knowledge that people that tell one big fat lie are unlikely to ever tell another.

  32. Men I believe you my friend. People who tell one big fat lie never tell another one. While I have your attention, I know you would be interested, would you like to consider some investments I am brokering? Let’s get started. Have you ever received 100% return on your investment in just a few days? Well…

    • I thought everyone would notice the sarcasm oozing out of the screen, so I did not bother with the sarc/ tag.
      But you probably knew that.
      For the record, if anything I write doesn’t sound either technical, outraged, or scornful, then I’m probably joking.

  33. Once upon a time
    a Nobel Peace Prize fell into a Black Hole
    (which was connected to a Worm Hole)
    in which it was torn to pieces;
    one of which emerged in a Woods Hole…

  34. Well,Dr. Richard Houghton is not the only one. Until April, 2014, recently, Dr Don Wuebbles of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Illinois @ Urbana-Champaign had a similar statement on his university website. What changed?
    After reading “Climate Change The Facts, 2014″,” I discovered the Nobel Prize ground rules. Therefore, I took the opportunity to write a letter in March 2015, to the editor of the local CHamaign-Urbana News-Gazette online for possible including in his “weekly mailbag” online column,. After a month, my statement was posted and Dr. Wuebbles replied:
    You have to scroll down to an item labelled “Nobel Prize Kerfuffle” (near the end of he weekly column)
    Dr. Wuebbles made some misleading statements which I rebutted in the disucssion section under my nom-de-plume “Rocky 7”. Despite Dr. Wuebble’s disclaimer, the article, the editor’s column ended with a closing sentence, “Wuebbles acknowledged that at one time his page said that she shared the prize, but it no longer does.”
    So here is what reader of WUWT could consider doing. Check the web site of your alma mater’s department of Atmospheric Sciences and see if ANY faculty list the Nobel Peace prize as Dr. Houghton and Dr. Wuebbles (at one time) did. Then file a complaint or ethics charge with the university, or local newspaper.

  35. OK OK now I get it. 95% of the scientists who contributed to the IPCC at one time or another have claimed to have won the Nobel Prize?

  36. Maybe these people are like Rachel Dolezal and “self-identify” as something they can’t be – in this case as a Nobel Prize winner. Rachel, if you haven’t heard, is the newest credibility-challenged NGO official in the most blue of the Pacific North Wet states. I guess it must be true that in Cartoon Land anything is possible.

  37. Because the inventor of dynamite didn’t want his name to be associated with war, he devised a marketing plan to change people’s perception. Thus the “Nobel Peace Prize” began. It’s kind of gone downhill from there!

  38. I was at the Nobel Peace Center today and noticed a display of past winners, including one with the names Al Gore and Rajendra K. Pachauri, without explanation that the award to the IPCC was not to each their hundreds – thousands – of contributors. The Center’s guide asked how combating global warming was related to peace, and I responded that there was no connection. Another tourist said it was about resources, and our guide left it at that. On a similar note, the Nobel people are still struggling to explain the award to Obama. As far as I could determine from their tortured explanations, Obama’s award was based on “hope”, not accomplishment. That seems to explain a lot at the Nobel Peace Center.

  39. Unfortunately, for “common people” it would make no difference at all. When I write “common people”, I mean anyone without a proper technical or scientifical university background (degree): it was hard and useless even to convince my MBA class colleagues, all well-educated professionals but mainly in finance or law, that Nobel Peace Prize is NOT a scientifical/technical award, and so it means nothing at all from the scientifical/technical point of view (see IPCC 2007).

  40. His bogus claim about winning the prize probably got him some cool chicks.
    “Hey want to come up and see my Peace Prize?”

Comments are closed.